**SPOILER**Survivor 9 Contestant Info

Okay, I'm not sure if this actually needs a spoiler label, because nothing revealing was really given away. Anyway, I read an article from USA Today over at Survivor Fever about the upcoming Survivor season. Jeff was at some fundraiser for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS foundation, and said he's leaving in a week for filiming. He didn't give too much away, but he said they cast "a colorful guy who would consider himself a redneck, super cute girls who appear to be fighters, a bunch of cocky guys, and someone who considers themselves inspirational."

My first thoughts: haven't we already seen these guys before? The redneck, the supercute girls and cocky guys (translation: huge famewhores who are doing this to get on t.v.), and the so-called people who think there an inspiration to everyone?

After all-stars, I was really looking forward to a new season with a regular cast. Now I don't know. It's been said that odd numbered seasons of Survivor (with the exception of the first one) have been the worst, so we'll see if this one holds up to that.

I'm sure there's bound to be someone unique in this cast... But Mark Burnett attested to the fact that he casts his season's casts based on different types of personality traits; the mom, the redneck, the sweetheart, etc. It looks like he's sticking to that formula. :rolleyes

So what are you folks expecting? Representation from every fringe group? If that happened, would you watch? Some people think that they wouldn't relate to an ethnic Bachelor (as if white people have a lock on falling in love on a series of fantasy dates) - but would relate to, let's say, a goth kid on Survivor? Come on. The types are relatively the same because people largely live the same! There will always be a hot chick (or more than 1), there are always going to be arrogant studs. Out of the pool that they have to choose from, most people are just not interesting enough to put on tv. Plain and simple. Not many of them will be "inspiring" and even then, what counts as "inspiring"?

The "types" are just gross generalizations of who those people are anyway, leaving out the subtle quirks and nuances. The hot chick could be a dork that happens to be a late bloomer! You won't know, however, until you watch.

So what are you folks expecting? Representation from every fringe group? If that happened, would you watch? Some people think that they wouldn't relate to an ethnic Bachelor (as if white people have a lock on falling in love on a series of fantasy dates) - but would relate to, let's say, a goth kid on Survivor? Come on. The types are relatively the same because people largely live the same! There will always be a hot chick (or more than 1), there are always going to be arrogant studs. Out of the pool that they have to choose from, most people are just not interesting enough to put on tv. Plain and simple. Not many of them will be "inspiring" and even then, what counts as "inspiring"?

The "types" are just gross generalizations of who those people are anyway, leaving out the subtle quirks and nuances. The hot chick could be a dork that happens to be a late bloomer! You won't know, however, until you watch.

Fair argument. But one thing that bothers me with Survivor is that the first cast was "normal" looking people, but every season since then, it's more about eye candy, more about the sex factor, and more about getting people to hook up (why else would they supply them with all that alcohol? For their health?) Yes, sex sells in Hollywood, no doubt about that. But really, when I read that article, four people popped into my mind: Tom, Heidi, Jenna M., and Jonny Fairplay. For a spilt second, I got a little worried they were doing all-stars 2. Your going to get cocky people who are a lot more cocky than those who came before them. Or get girls who are going to try and be a bigger tramp than their successors. Why? As I said above, it's all about the fame factor. If their a villian, or cause trouble, they'll get more camera time. But I think what bugs me is that they give a person a label (redneck, america's sweetheart, soccer mom) and really play them up to it. These people may be representative of some group in America, but you put a goth, or someone in tye dye who looks like there stuck in the 70's (and I don't mean Rupert), they'll also be representing some group out there as well. I just want diversity, I guess. But they have a show to do, and they'll do whatever brings in the ratings.

On a side note, I also read over at Survivor Fever that one contestant may possibly be from Denver. I guess a newspaper reported someone (didn't say whether it was a guy or girl) had a going away party for the show about a week ago.

In my opinion, the "looks" of the people haven't been all that extraordinary. I think that the casts have been pretty much normal throughout the seasons. There are some older people (though it's unlikely that anyone except Rudy will ever compete at such an advanced age again), and most of the younger folks are not supermodels. Most people are modestly gifted with looks, and even then, a glamour shot can make them look really good. Take Christa, Shawna, Stephanie, or Lindsey for example. Drop dead gorgeous? No, but when you put some makeup and some glam clothes on those gals, they look really good. Few of them are exceptionally beautiful without makeup.

I'd say that by and large, these are normal people. And the emphasis on sex comes from the players themselves. You take an average single guy like Rob Mariano, and what is he going to do? He's going to check out all the women. Rob Cesternino, same thing. It's not something that Burnett forces them to do - he just lets human nature and political restraints work their magic to make the drama for us.

You never know - the hot chick might be the 70s hippie treehugger. We just have to watch and see how their personalities - the nuances - emerge.